Camp David and David's city

WITH Bill Clinton away at the G8 summit in Okinawa, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at Camp David appear to be marking time. That Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat have agreed to stay on pending the president's return indicates their determination to come away with something from these marathon negotiations.

For the Israeli prime minister, failure to reach an agreement would signal a rapid rise in Islamist violence. For the Palestinian leader, it would undermine the goal of creating a viable state. And for Mr Clinton, it would shatter an ambition to leave office acknowledged as a statesmanlike peace-maker. Much hangs on the outcome of what happens in Maryland over the next few days.

Yet despite the common interest in success, agreement is far from certain. As expected, the chief stumbling-block is Jerusalem. For nearly a year, an idea has been circulating that two large cities could be created within one municipal authority. To Israel would go the Jewish quarters plus a bloc of settlements in the West Bank; to the other side, Palestinian districts of East Jerusalem plus some Arab villages outside the present city boundaries. Such a settlement would enable each party to claim Jerusalem as its capital, while a single municipal body would ensure freedom of movement between the two.

The core of the problem lies in defining the status of areas that Israel might cede. Would the Palestinians have full sovereignty, or share it with the Israelis, or merely be granted autonomy under Israeli control? These are the details now engaging the interlocutors. Mr Barak appears to have gone farther than ever before towards meeting the Palestinians' aspirations. Yet they remain unhappy with the proposed limitations on their sovereignty. Further mediation by Mr Clinton seems essential.

Both Mr Barak and Mr Arafat look weak. The prime minister narrowly survived a vote of no confidence in the Knesset before leaving for Maryland; a recent opinion poll in the West Bank and Gaza showed that barely a third of Palestinians supported their leader. Yet that similarity is not reflected at grass-roots level. There, the Israelis appear tired of confrontation with the Arab world and anxious to reach a settlement. By contrast, the Palestinians, buoyed by the retreat of the Israeli army from Lebanon, are ready for renewed armed struggle.

Faced with unrelenting hostility from the Arab populace, Israel must secure a settlement that leaves it with easily defendable borders. Old age is pushing Mr Arafat towards compromise with Israel before his health fails him. His successor may not be so pliant. Whatever the nature of a future Palestinian state, it is unlikely to be an easy neighbour. As a soldier, Mr Barak is aware of the security risks that his bold search for peace entails. If agreement is finally reached, whether at the current Camp David session or by the September 13 deadline he has set for resolving final status issues, he will need all his authority as a directly elected prime minister to sell it to the Israeli people.